Allowed

Nirmala Kumari v. the Sub Collector/

Kerala HC20 Mar 2019WP(C)/5481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 72,000 regarding an interim maintenance order pending resolution of the main complaint, ensuring the funds remain custodial until the Tribunal's final decision despite the parent's claim.

What did the court decide?

Depositor directed to deposit Rs. 72,000 with the Maintenance Tribunal for safe custody pending final disposal of the maintenance complaint.

Nirmala Kumari Vs the Sub Collector/ — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5481 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

NIRMALA KUMARI, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. MAHENDRAKUMAR, HOUSEWIFE,MAHIMA, NO.61/253,KARIMPATTA CROSS ROAD, PALLIMUKKU,KOCHI-682 016

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.K.J.SEBASTIAN SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SMT.S.SANDHYA SRI.ANTONY THARIAN SRI.BEPIN PAUL SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SRI.S.DEEPAK SRI.SHALU VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682 002

¶11

2 RAJALAKSHMI PANICKER, AGED 84 YEARS W/O. LATE N.G.PANICKER, FROM MADHUPAN, NARAYANAN AASAN ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, NOW RESIDING AT ANANTHA VIHAR, CC NO.61/254,KARIMPATTA CROSS ROAD, (ELECTRONIC STREET),PALLIMUKKU, ENRAKULAM,PIN-682 016

¶12

3 K.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, ADVOCATE, CENTRE FOR LEGAL ADI, 61/255 ANANTHA VIHAR, ELECTRONIC STREET, NGO UNION OFFICE LANE, KARIMBATTA CROSS ROAD, PALLIMIKKU,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 016

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN-SC SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA) SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 5481/19

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the daughter

¶19

of the 2^nd respondent-senior citizen coming

¶20

within the sweep of the Maintenance and Welfare

¶21

of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short).

¶22

The petitioner impugns Ext.P2 interim

¶23

order granted by the Maintenance Tribunal,

¶24

constituted under the Act, to the senior

¶25

citizen, as per which she has been directed to pay Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance to the senior citizen from 03.02.2015. She says that

¶26

she was not even heard by the 1^st respondent

¶27

before Ext.P2 was issued and that she came to be aware of this order only when she received a

¶28

notice from the Office of the Maintenance

¶29

Tribunal on 14.02.2018, namely Ext.P3; and that on becoming so aware, her counsel approached the Maintenance Tribunal with an application seeking copies of the complaint of the senior citizen

¶30

WPC 5481/19

¶31

¶32

and such other, which were given to her counsel on 15.03.2018.

¶33

the above mentioned documents, even though she was willing to appear before the Maintenance Tribunal and argue on the matter, the matter was being adjourned without any tenable reason. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P2 be set aside and that the complaint of the senior citizen, namely Ext.P13, be directed to be disposed of as per law.

¶34

The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. K. Amminikutty, appearing on instructions from the 1^st respondent, submits that the above recorded allegations of the petitioner are completely untrue and that a proper notice had been issued to her by the Maintenance Tribunal

¶35

on 18.07.2014, which was despatched on 31.07.2014 to be served on her through the concerned Village Officer. She says that another notice was, thereafter, issued on 24.09.2014 in

¶36

WPC 5481/19

¶37

¶38

the address of the petitioner shown in the complaint which was returned with the endorsement “door locked”. She says that the concerned Village Officer's report, dated 24.01.2015, would clearly show that the house of the petitioner, in the address shown in the complaint of the senior citizen, was locked and that it was reported that she is staying in another place at Tripunithura. The learned Senior Government Pleader, therefore, says that the Maintenance Tribunal had no other option but to issue Ext.P2 as an interim measure, taking note of the plight of the senior citizen and the emergent requirement for her protection.

¶39

Sri. S. Easwaran, the learned counsel appearing for the senior citizen, submits virtually in affirmation of the assertions made

¶40

by Smt. K. Amminikutty, but adds that the

¶41

conduct of the petitioner in having approached this Court more than a year after she concededly came to be aware of Ext.P1 interim order, cannot

¶42

WPC 5481/19

¶43

¶44

be found tenable. He says that even if this Court is inclined to direct the Maintenance Tribunal to act in a particular manner, that may be done only on terms, because the petitioner, admittedly, has not made any payment under Ext.P2 interim order until now, even though she

¶45

came to be aware of the said order at least on 15.03.2018.

¶46

On hearing Sri. S. Easwaran as afore, I asked Sri. M.P. Ramnath, the learned counsel for

¶47

the petitioner, as to whether his client would be willing to deposit some amounts under Ext.P2 order before the Maintenance Tribunal, so that it can be appropriated by the senior citizen; to which, the learned counsel submits that his client has no objection in depositing some amounts as may be directed by this Court, but

¶48

that it may not be ordered to be now paid to the senior citizen, because her client bonafide believes that the amounts would be appropriated

¶49

by another daughter of the 2^nd respondent. He

¶50

WPC 5481/19

¶51

¶52

asserts that his client has preferred detailed objections to Ext.P13 complaint of the senior citizen, through Ext.P14 written statement; and that she has also preferred Ext.P12 application before the Tribunal, to bring on record all the other children of the senior citizen, as is

¶53

required under the Act, so that maintenance can

¶54

be then ordered against all of them in

¶55

appropriate proportions.

¶56

Taking note of the afore submissions, I am of the view that since the petitioner has admittedly come to be aware of Ext.P1 interim order at least on 15.03.2018, she must deposit

¶57

the amounts ordered therein from that date

¶58

before the Maintenance Tribunal; but that the said amounts will not be appropriated or paid to

¶59

the senior citizen until Ext.P13 complaint is

¶60

finally disposed of, in terms of law. I am also certain that Ext.P13 complaint must be decided within a short time frame, after following due procedure and that the parties should not, in

¶61

WPC 5481/19

¶62

¶63

any manner, seek or ask for adjournment except in exceptional circumstances.

¶64

In the afore perspective, I direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.72,000/-, within a period of one week from the date of

¶65

receipt of a copy of this judgment, which represents the maintenance amount that she would have to pay under Ext.P2 from April 2018 until this date; which amount shall then be maintained by the Maintenance Tribunal in an account, without being paid to the senior citizen, until Ext.P13 complaint is disposed of finally. I further direct the Maintenance Tribunal to take

¶66

up Ext.P12 application along with Ext.P13 complaint of the senior citizen and dispose of the same, after affording necessary opportunity to the parties and adverting to Ext.P14 written statement preferred by the petitioner.

¶67

Since I am aware that Sri. S. Easwaran has a contention that Ext.P12 has been preferred by

¶68

the petitioner beyond time, this will also be an

¶69

WPC 5481/19

¶70

¶71

aspect that will be considered by the Maintenance Tribunal while completing the exercise as afore directed. The Maintenance Tribunal will also consider the merits of the contentions of Sri. M.P. Ramnath that Ext.P13 is incompetent, since it has not been filed

¶72

directly by the senior citizen, but through an alleged organisation run by the 3^rd respondent.

¶73

In the afore circumstances and in order to

¶74

ensure the expeditious compliance of the directions in this judgment, I direct the parties to mark appearance before the Maintenance Tribunal on 02.04.2019 at 11 a.m., on which day the said Authority will commence proceedings and thereafter complete it, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from then.

¶75

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 5481/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶84

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2019 IN PROCEEDING NO.S-6287/14 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.09.03.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDING NO.S-6287/14
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 03.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT A S THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, FORT KOCHI, IN PROCEEDING NO.S62387
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RENT DEED DT 03.03. 2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND MAHENDRA KUMAR AND THE LANDLADY RUBINA HAMID
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06.02.2018 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDING NO.6287/2014
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 12.02.2018 FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING NOTICES TO HER TO BE SERVED UPON HER COUNSEL ENGAGED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 28.3.2018 INTIMATING HEARING ON 07.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF HE UNDATED NOTICE INTIMATING HEARING ON 26.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶85

WPC 5481/19

¶86

¶87

EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF HE NOTICE
	DT.10.12.2018 INTIMATING HEARING ON 14.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION DT 15.12.2018 FOR RECALLING WARRANT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 16.01.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT CALLING FOR HEARING ON 25.01.2019
EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PETITION DT 24.01.2019 TO IMPLEAD OTHER CHILDREN OF RAJALAKSHMI PANICKER
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.07.07.2014 GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT SUPPOSEDLY ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DT 26.07.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEEDING, TO EXT P13
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 27.08.2014 FILED ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING ISSUANCE OF NON- BAILABLE ARREST WARRANT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT THEREIN (PETITIONER HEREIN) TO PROCURE BER PRESENCE
EXHIBIT	P16 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 10/6/2010 SENT BY PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN REPLY TO EXHIBIT R2(a)
EXHIBIT	P17 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD RETURNED SIGNED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AFTER RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P16.
EXHIBIT	P18 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE NAME BOARD.

¶88

WPC 5481/19

¶89

¶90

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶91

EXHIBIT-R(2)A. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/6/2010 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT REQUESTING PETITIONER FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

¶92

EXHIBIT-R(2)B. PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER SBI VYTTILA BRANCH.

Nirmala Kumari v. the Sub Collector/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Kumari v. the Sub Collector/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikkan Vs the Authorised Officer

Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs the State of Kerala

Jamaludeen Vs Special Sale Officer

Binu Krishnan.B Vs State of Kerala

Subha.K Vs Syndicate Bank

Roy Mathew Poonattu Vs the Federal Bank Limited